4 ms·

I don't know what alpha theory you are talking about, but as far as the accepted definition of alpha goes[1], it's "Denoting the dominant[2] animal or human in

I don't know what alpha theory you are talking about, but as far as the accepted definition of alpha goes[1], it's "Denoting the dominant[2] animal or human in a particular group". So as far as I can see, the word was being used in the correct context, implying the correct accepted definition. So it seems a bit strange that you first claim that not only is the wrong term being used, but that the term does not actually exist (or is accepted). I'm curious what you think, so would you like to expand on why you disagree? [1] "Denoting the dominant animal or human in a particular group", http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alpha#alpha__8 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/alpha#a... [2] "Having power and influence over others", http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dominant#dominant__2 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dominan....

gnaritas 11y ago
Quoting me definitions that arose to begin with from bunk science does not negate my point that they're incorrect and based on bunk science. Just because words have entered the popular lexicon doesn't make them correct when applied in the very area the bad science was done. The term alpha is non-sense, end of story. > I don't know what alpha theory you are talking about, Clearly, so why don't you look into the origins of the word and its current usage; what you'll find is bad science. Packs don't have alphas and betas, dogs and wolves don't have alphas and betas; the leader of a pack is usually the father of the pack, not the strongest or most dominant in a pack, and everything implied about dominance by the term alpha is simply wrong. It's not how packs work, it's not how baboons work, it's not how social groups work. There are no betas and no alphas. It's just bad science that got popular enough to enter the popular lexicon.

gnaritas 11y ago

Quoting me definitions that arose to begin with from bunk science does not negate my point that they're incorrect and based on bunk science. Just because words have entered the popular lexicon doesn't make them correct when applied in the very area the bad science was done. The term alpha is non-sense, end of story. > I don't know what alpha theory you are talking about, Clearly, so why don't you look into the origins of the word and its current usage; what you'll find is bad science. Packs don't have alphas and betas, dogs and wolves don't have alphas and betas; the leader of a pack is usually the father of the pack, not the strongest or most dominant in a pack, and everything implied about dominance by the term alpha is simply wrong. It's not how packs work, it's not how baboons work, it's not how social groups work. There are no betas and no alphas. It's just bad science that got popular enough to enter the popular lexicon.